Janhunen J. The Mongolic Languages

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

misgiyaan miscwa ja hirtegiin xula uu-wa ‘I put on my clothes and ate breakfast’. The

periphrastic form, on the other hand, is used for the second and third persons, e.g. bi

cögdör cimiin xaisandi ci yawighaa’d-c’ wai ‘when I was looking for you yesterday you

had gone’; miliin ghuurni dianying xalda-j’ wai ‘two of the children have seen the film’;

tere gholdi qusun awila yawi-j’ wai ‘he went to the river to fetch water’; tere noqoisa

ayi-j’ wai ‘he was frightened by the dog’.

However, the first person may take -j’ wai when the speaker is not the conscious

performer of the action, e.g. bu odoo wed-c’ wai ‘I am [have become] ill now’; ci misee

suuma shini malaghaidi bu oyin li ab-c’wai ‘I did not notice the new hat you are wearing’.

Similarly, the second and third persons may take -wA when the speaker is the object of,

or a witness to, the action: xwaartighi ghurwan namiin inggij’ arghala-wa ‘before, three

have tricked me this way’; tere shükürci gharaa’d-ba ‘he came out running’; budani

saghligh juun hilüü xurghan töröö-we ‘our ewes brought forth over one hundred lambs’;

bi cögdör picig xaldaji suusandi küün ere-we ‘when I was reading a book yesterday,

a man came’. Questions in the second and third persons may also take -wA, e.g. ci muni

memiin eje-w’uu ‘have you seen my mother?’; meme-cini xana hani-wa ‘where did your

mummy go?’; ci yaandi üüla-wa ‘why have you been crying?’. Altogether, the use of the

past non-progressive forms is best understood as an incipient stage in the grammatical-

ization of the category of perspective (as also attested in the other languages of the

Gansu-Qinghai complex).

(6) The periphrastic past progressive form in -jla suu- ~ -dla suu- (after obstruent

stems -cla suu- ~ -tla suu-) expresses concrete actions that took place in the past. The

auxiliary normally takes the past non-progressive ending -wa and appears as suu-wa, e.g.

bu muni xanisle larlaldi-jla suu-wa ‘I was chatting with my friends’; cögdör ci yima

bar-dla suu-wa ‘what were you doing yesterday?’.

(7) The periphrastic past continuous form in /G-AA suu- expresses an action that took

place continuously in the past. The auxiliary is again in the past non-progressive form,

e.g. onoon jundi bi xooni adla/gh-aa suu-wa ‘in the summer of this year I was herding

sheep’.

(8) The periphrastic perfect in -(G)sAn bai denotes past actions of which the result is

still present and irreversible, e.g. bi xara baghasa shünandi suu-san be ‘I have lived in

Sunan since I was very small’; cimiin ja yimar dügedi ool-son bi ‘when were you born?’;

ci xana shiked-sen bi ‘where did you grow up?’; cögdör ci teleen xög-sen b’uu ‘have you

chopped firewood yesterday?’.

(

9) The narrative (more exactly, narrative perfect) in -(G )sAn bi gi-nii involves another

periphrastic construction, based on the perfect followed by the present non-progressive

form of gi- ‘to say’. It is typically used in tales, e.g. urda cagti nege ghuur tologhoi

suu-san bi ginii ‘once upon a time there was a couple’.

(10) The periphrastic future in -G’ wai expresses actions that will take place in the

future, e.g. xura orowar wesin ghar-q’ wai ‘if it rains, the grass will come up [grow]’;

ci kejee yawi-gh’ wai ‘when will you go?’. When referring to the first person, the future

is functionally synonymous with the voluntative and optative forms of the imperative

paradigm. An alternative ending of the future is -GU, e.g. odoo la cimiin ede-gü ‘now

I will eat you up’; bu püsegüiyaan degde suu-qu ‘I’ll stay by my wife’s side’; ci ghudal

kelese bu cini arasini xuulj’ ab-qu ‘if you tell a lie, I will skin you’. The background of

-GU (-gü ~ -ghu ~ -kü ~ -qu) is unclear, but it possibly contains a contraction of the

auxiliary bai (or some other element), rather than a preservation of the original suffix

vowel (*-kU ). In combination with the question particle uu, the future has the ending

-G’ uu, e.g. cimiin keendi ög-k’ uu ‘to whom shall I give you?’.

280 THE MONGOLIC LANGUAGES

(11) The periphrastic impending future in -lAA wai denotes an action that is about to

take place (‘soon’, ‘nearly’), e.g. bi yawi-laa we ‘I’ll be going soon’; naran gharc’ ere-

lee wai ‘the sun will come up shortly’; xula hcal-laa w’ uu ‘will the meal be cooked

(ready) soon?’. Interestingly, the simple confirmative suffix -lAA (< *-lUxA) does not

seem to be attested in Shira Yughur without a following auxiliary.

The periphrastic forms also have conditionals, formed by replacing the auxiliary bai

by conv. cond. bol-so ‘if [it] is’. The resulting constructions are: progressive -jla bolso,

continuous /G-AA bolso, habitual -dAG bolso, non-progressive -ji bolso, perfect -(G )sAn

bolso, future -Gi bolso, and impending -lAA bolso. Examples: salqin xög-cla bolso budas

chang yenlele yawiya ‘if the wind is blowing, let us go winnowing!’; dengi tuusin ügüi

bolso, hami-laa bolso, tuusin nemeji düürge ‘if the lamp has no oil, if it will go out soon,

add oil!; ta tangghid öjig mede-deg bolso mini xaruun nige ongshij’ ög ‘if you know the

Tibetan script, please read my letter!’. The conditional perfect functions as an irrealis,

e.g. ci hirteshig posc’ ere-sen bolso, cimadi hirtegiin xula uuqi cölöö suuqi taani ‘if you

had got up a little earlier, you would have had time to eat breakfast’.

AUXILIARY VERBS

Apart from the fully grammaticalized temporal-aspectual constructions with the auxil-

iaries +bai and +suu-, Shira Yoghur has a large number of other auxiliary constructions,

which may also be termed compound verbs. These are combinations of two verbs, of

which the second, functioning as the auxiliary, narrows down the meaning of the first.

Verbs requiring such specification are often inherently ambiguous with regard to some

crucial parameter, such as directional or aspectual status, e.g. xari- ‘to return’, nüü- ‘to

move’, agsi- ‘to lend; to borrow’, hkü- ‘to be dying; to die; to be dead’, nda- ‘to fall

asleep; to sleep’, tani- ‘to get to know; to know’, mis- ‘to put on; to wear (clothes)’.

The auxiliaries able to add the required directional or aspectual content include typically

such as ere- ‘to come’ vs. od- ‘to go’, oro- ‘to enter, to come in’ vs. ghar- ‘to exit, to go

out’, and ög- ‘to give’ or elge- ‘to send’ vs. ab- ‘to take’.

Many compound verbs are almost completely lexicalized, e.g. xarij’ ere-

‘to come

back’, misc’ ab- ‘to put on (clothes)’, agsij’ ög- ‘to lend’, ghudaldaj’ elge- ‘to sell’ vs.

ghudaldaj’ ab- ‘to buy’. Some combinations may, however, be regarded as manifesta-

tions of productive processes. In such combinations, the auxiliary occasionally merges

with the preceding converb marker into a single complex suffix. Examples:

(1) The combination -j’ab- (imperfective converb + ‘to take’) indicates that the action

is performed for the subject’s benefit, although in some cases the original meaning still

shines through, e.g. mini nikidiili nembele-j’ ab ‘wrap my fur-lined jacket around you!’.

Similarly -j’ ög- (imperfective converb + ‘to give’) indicates that the action is performed

for someone else’s benefit, e.g. nanda largi-j’ ög ‘tell me!’; ci nanda misgi xala-j’ ög

‘sew a garment for me!’.

(2) The combination -j’ oghor- (imperfective converb + *ogor- ‘to throw’) conveys a

perfective or resultative notion. This is the most frequent and least marked expression of

this type, and it is often used to soften imperatives, e.g. ci muni tölööndi ene xaruun

kürge-j’ oghor ‘please deliver this letter for me!’; daawsini nanda ög-j’ oghorso bolq’

waan ‘can you give me the salt?’; ci muu seisi xana tal-j’ oghorwa ‘where have you put

the things?’. A very similar structure is -j’ elge- (imperfective converb + ‘to send’),

e.g. bu ndacurya giwe, ci dengi piile-j’ elge ‘I want to sleep, blow out the lamp!’; nüür

SHIRA YUGHUR 281

’ghwaama qusuni saji-j’ elge ‘throw away the bathwater!’ (literally: ‘face-washing

water’).

(3) The element -cor- (< *kocar- ‘to remain’) has become a true suffix and seems to

have absorbed the preceding imperfective converb ending (or zero ending?). It also has

a perfective function, but it is only used when the action is not consciously performed by

the grammatical subject, e.g. bu nagta ödöri marta-corc’ wai ‘I have forgotten the exact

date’.

(4) Another perfective combination, or suffixal complex, is /G-AA’d- (< perfective

converb + od- ‘to go’). It seems to be used with verbs of motion, e.g. sajaqai soyoon

awaa honis-ee’d-sen bi ginii ‘the magpie took the tusk and flew away’; muni tergen

shwar htoro oro/gh-oo’d-c’ wai ‘my car has become stuck in the mud’.

(5) The verbs oro- (‘to enter’), and ghar- (‘to exit’) are, in combination with various

converbial forms, used to denote the beginning or end of the action, respectively, e.g.

hyisin cegti bu gongzuola-dla orodogh be ‘at nine o’clock I start working’; danda ögme

ölöön bar-ji gharwa ‘I have done the job that was given to me’. The verb hkü- (‘to die’),

on the other hand, intensifies the action of the preceding verb, e.g. bu odoo megdegee

hkünii ‘I am terribly busy now’.

SYNTAX

Two specific issues connected with Shira Yughur syntax are examined below: postposi-

tions and negation.

The postpositions in Shira Yughur are a heterogeneous group of words expressing

various spatial, temporal, or modal relationships. The majority of them are originally

nouns, usually with a spatial meaning. These nouns often occur in fixed case forms,

while the preceding noun is normally in the nominative or genitive case. Common

Mongolic postpositions of nominal origin include: dat. aarti ‘behind, after’ (< *aru-du),

ölmö ‘before, in front of’ (< *emün-e), dere ‘on’ : deegeer ‘over’ (< *dexer-e : instr.

dee/g-eer), degde ‘at, near’ (< *derge-de), duura ‘under’ (< *doxur-a), dunda ‘in the middle

of’ (< *dum-da), ghadana ‘outside’ (< *gadan-a), htoro ‘in, among’ (< *dotar-a), juura

‘between’ (< *jaxur-a), xoino ‘after’ (< *koyin-a), tölöö

: dat. tölööndi, töleendi ‘for [the

benefit of]’ (< *tölüxe/n ‘compensation’). More recent formations are: biid’ ‘at’ : wiigeer

‘along’ (< dat. bii-di : instr. bii/g-eer from *beye ‘body’), xwaar ‘before’ (< *kabar

‘nose’), (nom. or conn. +) jüg ~ jig ‘in the direction of’ (< *jüg ‘direction’), (conn. +)

dat. hcür-ti : instr. hcür-eer ‘because of’ (< *ucir ‘reason’), cf. also instr. nere-er ‘in the

capacity of’ (< *nere ‘name’). Some postpositions are originally adverbs, e.g. (com. +)

xamti ‘together with’ (< *kamtu), while others are verbal forms, e.g. (conn. or com. +)

orgholduma, orghoson, orghuulaa ‘like’, (nom. +) woloo ‘because of’, (nom. +) gigee

‘for the sake of’, (nom. +) daghaghaa ‘along’, (nom. +) kürtele ‘until’. Further postpo-

sitions are: (conn. +) cagh ‘as, like’, (nom. +) shinggi ‘as, like’.

Examples of phrases with postpositions: geri aarti ‘behind the house’; üdeen ölmö

‘before noon’; ayigha shere dere we ‘the bowl is on the table’; üdeni ghadana ‘outside

the door’; qusun htoro naad- ‘to play in the water’; küken cgeyaan tölööndi gongzuolaj’

wai ‘the boy worked for his father’; shere wiid’ joqoi ‘sit at the table!’; ünle orgholduma

shike wai ‘he is as big as he’; nudurghiin cagh ciluu ‘a stone as large as a fist’; xawiri

tenggeriin bulid shinggi cighaan ‘as white as a cloud of the spring sky’.

The expression of negation in Shira Yughur takes place by means of several Common

Mongolic negative particles (only the particle *ese seems to have been lost). Each

verbal category is combined with one particular negative particle (Table 13.7). Moreover,

282 THE MONGOLIC LANGUAGES

each negative particle has a fixed position, standing either before or after the verbal form

it negates.

The postposited particle ügüi ~ ügwei, originally the Common Mongolic negative

noun (< *ügei), functions as the negation for three periphrastic forms: the present

progressive and continuous, as well as the impending future, e.g. bu odoo yima da gij’

ügwei we ‘I have nothing to do now’. The likewise postposited pushi (< *bisi) negates

the identity of a noun, but it is also used in the abraded forms -shi or -sh’ to negate the

periphrastic future, e.g. odoo li erese bi saaghighi-sh’we ‘if he does not come now, I will

not wait [any longer]’. The same form can function as the negative counterpart of the

present non-progressive in -nAi, e.g. ci largimiin bi anglaghi-shi we ‘I do not understand

what you said’; ci namiin tanighi-sh’ uu ‘don’t you know me?’.

The preposited particle püti (cf. Common Mongolic *bütügei) negates imperative

forms, e.g. püti hice ‘don’t be ashamed!’; ci püti tamiki sorosoo ‘do not smoke!’. Finally,

the preposited particle li ~ l’ (< *ülü) negates all remaining verbal forms, including par-

ticiples and converbs, as well as most finite forms based on them, e.g. tere ja ariki l’uuqi

kün bai ‘he is a person who will not drink liquor’; malni hkügee, li amiraldaghaa suuj’

wai ‘their livestock died, and they were not at ease’. In verbs formed with +gi-, the

negative particles are placed directly before this element, e.g. dzii+gi- ‘to be polite’ > dzii

li gi- ‘to be impolite’; küün(-i) dalda lar püti gi ‘don’t talk about people behind their

back!’ (lar+gi- ‘to talk’).

LEXICON

The Mongolic lexicon of Shira Yughur contains words and phonetic variants with a

‘Western Mongolic’ flavour, e.g. wiji ‘feeding bottle’, gha(di)sin ‘peg’, hücü ‘fur-lined

coat’, xalaasin ‘patch’. Other features are shared with Mongghul, e.g. ngghwaasin

‘wool’, göörö (güre) ‘other’. Some Mongolic words appear in unique forms, e.g. labcigh

‘leaf’ (< *nabcin),

honis- ‘fly’ (< *nis-), qusun ‘water’ (< *usun), tal- ‘to put’ (< *talbi-).

There are also some peculiar, apparently taboo-related descriptive expressions, e.g. nag

noqoi ‘squirrel’ (literally: ‘tree-dog’), malaghaici ‘fox’ (literally: ‘hatter’), tulugh xara

‘bear’ (literally: ‘hairy black’).

SHIRA YUGHUR 283

TABLE 13.7 SHIRA YUGHUR NEGATIVE PARTICLES

verbal category particle negated form

imperatives püti püti + imperative

participles li li + participle

converbs li li + converb

present non-progressive li li + -nAi (-nii)

present progressive ügüi -j’ ügüi

present continuous ügüi /G-AA ügüi

present habitual li li + -dAG bai

past non-progressive (1) li li + -wA

past non-progressive (2) li li + -j’ wai

perfect li li + -(G)sAn bai

future [ pu]shi -Gi-shi wai

impending future ügüi -lAA ügüi

Recent borrowings from standard Mandarin Chinese seem to be less numerous than in

other Mongolic and Turkic languages of the region, although Chinese is used in schools.

Loanwords from the local Northwestern Mandarin dialect include biigi ‘quilt’, kui

‘hammer’, feinii ‘cement’ (for standard Mandarin beizi, chui, shuini). The remaining

foreign lexicon mainly consists of words of Turkic and Tibetan origin. The Turkic words

derive partly from Sarygh Yughur and partly from other (unidentified) sources, e.g. dad

‘rust’, hdei ‘small’, soghong ‘onion’, üü- ‘to praise’. The Tibetan words come from the

local Amdo dialects, e.g. shnüge ‘writing brush’, ghayarla- ‘to borrow’, zaghali ‘portrait’.

There are also quite a number of words of unknown or uncertain origin, part of which

are common with Sarygh Yughur. Some of these belong to basic vocabulary, hani- ‘to

go’, lar ‘word’, bala ‘egg’. Other obscure items are shared with Mongghul, e.g. jura- ‘to

chase’, süis ‘two-year-old billy-goat’. Shira Yughur also shares some semantic and/or

functional shifts with the other languages of the Gansu-Qinghai complex, e.g. ergen

(< *irgen ‘people’) used as a third person pronoun, and ejen (< ‘master’) used as the reflexive

pronoun.

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

Bulchulu [Buluchilaqhu] et al. (1984) [published 1985] Jaguv Yuqhur Galav u vUigas (Dongbu

Yuguyu Cihui) [= Muvgqhul Tuirul uv Gala vAyalqhuv u Sudulul uv Cuburil / Menggu Yuzu

Yuyan Fangyan Yanjiu Congshu 017], Guigaquda.

Bulchulu [Buluchilaqhu] and Jalsan [Jalsav] (1988) Jaguv Yuqhur Galav u vUigae Galalgae jiv

Ma’teriyal (Dongbu Yuguyu Huayu Cailiao) [= Muvgqhul Tuirul uv Gala vAyalqhuv u Sudulul

uv Cuburil / Menggu Yuzu Yuyan Fangyan Yanjiu Congshu 018], Guigaquda.

Bulchulu [Buluchilaqhu] and Jalsan [Jalsav] (1990) [published 1991] Jaguv Yuqhur Gala bae

Mungqhul Gala (Dongbu Yuguyu he Mengguyu) [= Muvgqhul Tuirul uv Gala vAyalqhuv u

Sudulul uv Cuburil / Menggu Yuzu Yuyan Fangyan Yanjiu Congshu 016], Guigaquda.

Hahn, Reinhard F. (1998) ‘Yellow Uyghur and Salar’, in Lars Johanson and Éva Ágnes Csató (eds)

The Turkic Languages, Routledge: London and New York, pp. 397–402.

Hermanns, M. (1951), ‘The Uigur and Angar Language in Kan Su, China’, Journal of the Bombay

Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 26: 192–213.

Junast [Zhaonasitu] (1981) Dongbu Yuguyu Jianzhi [Zhongguo Shaoshu Minzu Yuyan Jianzhi

Congshu], Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.

Kotwicz, W

)adys)aw (1950 [1953]) ‘La langue mongole, parlé par les Ouïgours jaunes près de

Kan-tcheou’, Rocznik Orientalisticzny 16: 435–65.

Malov, S. Ye. (1957) Yazyk zheltyx uigurov: slovar’ i grammatika, Almuta: Izdatel’stvo Akademiï

Nauk Kazaxskoi SSR.

Mannerheim, C. G. E. (1911) ‘A Visit to the Sarö and Shera Yögurs’, Journal de la Société Finno-

Ougrienne 27 (2): 1–72.

Nugteren, Hans and Marti Roos (1996) ‘Common Vocabulary of the Western and Eastern Yugur

Languages: The Turkic and Mongolic Loanwords’, Acta Orientalia Hungarica 49: 25–91.

Nugteren, Hans and Marti Roos (1998) ‘Common Vocabulary of the Western and Eastern Yugur

Languages: The Tibetan Loanwords’, Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 3: 45–92.

Potanin, G. N. (1893) Tangutsko-tibetskaya okraïna Kitaya i central’naya Mongoliya, vols. 1–2,

S.-Peterburg: Izdanie Imperatorskago Russkago Geograficheskogo Obshhestva.

Róna-Tas, András (1962) ‘Tibetan Loan-words in the Shera Yögur Language’, Acta Orientalia

Hungarica 15: 259–71.

Tenishev, E. R. (1976) Stroi saryg-yugurskogo yazyka, Moskva: Nauka (Institut yazykoznaniya AN

SSSR).

Tenishev, E. R. and Todaeva, B. X. (1966) Yazyk zheltyx uigurov, Moskva: Nauka (Institut narodov

Aziï AN SSSR).

284 THE MONGOLIC LANGUAGES

Thomsen, Kaare (1959) ‘Die Sprache der Gelben Uiguren und das Salarische’, in Jean Deny et al.

(eds) Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta 1, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, pp. 564–8.

Todaeva, B. X. (1997) ‘Shira yugurov yazyk’, in Mongol’skie yazyki – Tunguso-man’chzhurskie

yazyki – Yaponskii yazyk – Koreiskii yazyk, Yazyki Mira, Moskva: Rossiiskaya Akademiya Nauk

& Izdatel’stvo Indrik, pp. 148–52.

SHIRA YUGHUR 285

286

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

MONGGHUL

Stefan Georg

Mongghul, or Huzhu Mongghul, is, together with (Minhe) Mangghuer, generally

referred to as ‘Monguor’ in the specialist literature. The Chinese nomenclature subsumes

the two populations and their languages under the designation Tu or Turen ‘Local

People’, and assigns only dialect status to the two varieties. Linguistically it is, however,

clearly a question of two separate languages. The traditional name Monguor, which is

nothing but a transformed shape of *monggol, is, strictly speaking, not justified for

Mongghul, since the syllable-final sound change *l > r characterizes, apart from

Mangghuer, only part of the dialects of the Mongghul language, notably the Naringhol

(more exactly, Narin ghuor) dialect. The shape Mongghul, on the other hand, is based on

the Halchighol (Halqighul) variant, which is territorially more widespread, has more

speakers, and is the basis of a newly created literary language.

In more specific terms, the Mongghul speakers traditionally identify themselves as

Qighaan Mongghul ‘White Mongols’, as opposed to Hara Mongghul ‘Black

Mongols’, a name reserved for other Mongolic-speaking groups. To their Tibetan neigh-

bours, the Mongghul and Mangghuer have been known as hJahur (Written Tibetan

rGya.Hor ‘Chinese Mongols’) or Karlung. In earlier Western (especially Russian) liter-

ature, the generic name Shirongol was used, being applied to all the Mongolic groups of

the Gansu-Qinghai region with the exception of the Shira Yughur and the Qinghai Oirat.

Another traditional term is Dolot (with variants). The dialects of Mongghul are mainly

labelled according to the river basins in which they are spoken, including the Halchighol

and Naringhol, both of which are left tributaries of the Huangshui, which itself is a trib-

utary of the Yellow River. Another dialect, of which little is known, is spoken along the

Fulan Nuraghol, also a tributary of the Huangshui.

Administratively, Mongghul is mainly spoken in the Chinese province of Qinghai

(until 1928 a part of Gansu), especially in Huzhu Tu Autonomous County, northeast of

the provincial capital Xining. From here, the Mongghul population extends both

westwards to Datong Hui and Tu Autonomous County, also in Qinghai, and eastwards to

Tianzhu Tibetan Autonomous County, in (present-day) Gansu. Due to linguistic

assimilation, there are very few Mongghul speakers left today in Datong, but the

language is better preserved in both Huzhu and Tianzhu. There are indications that

Mongghul, possibly in a special dialectal variety, has also been spoken (and is

possibly still spoken) further north in what is now Menyuan Hui Autonomous County of

Qinghai.

The current number of Mongghul speakers is not easy to determine. The 1990 census,

which does not differentiate between Mongghul and Mangghuer speakers, gives a total

of 191,624 members of the Tu nationality. This number includes at least 25,000 Mangghuer,

as well as several thousand Qinghai Bonan and Wutun speakers, leaving perhaps a rough

figure of 150,000 for Mongghul. Certainly, this can only be the number of potential

speakers of the language, since information on the rate of first-language retention and/or

linguistic assimilation is insufficient. The actual number of Mongghul speakers is likely

MONGGHUL 287

to be much below the total size of the ethnic population, and maybe as low as 50,000.

Moreover, the number is probably decreasing, rather than increasing.

Even within Huzhu Tu Autonomous County, the majority of the local population is made

up of Han Chinese, as well as Chinese-speaking Muslims (Hui). These, together with Amdo

Tibetans, have exerted strong cultural and linguistic influence on Mongghul. As a result,

Mongghul, like Mangghuer (and the other Mongolic languages of the Gansu-Qinghai com-

plex), has undergone considerable restructuring in its typological make-up. Loanwords from

both Qinghai Mandarin and Amdo Tibetan abound in Mongghul. The sources of the Tibetan

items vary, but most of them seem to derive from the so-called dPa.ri (Hwari) and sBra.nag

(Panaka) dialects, spoken northeast and southeast of Huzhu, respectively.

Little is known about the early history of the Mongghul, but it seems safe to assume

that the current Mongolic presence in Qinghai does not antedate the occupation of the

region by Mongol troops in 1227. When the Yuan dynasty fell in 1368, the ancestors of

the present-day Mongghul and Mangghuer, who apparently shared much of their history

until premodern times, instead of following other Mongol groups back to the northern

homeland beyond the Great Wall, declared themselves loyal to the Ming, and later to the

Qing. From Ming times onward, they are known as borderguards in the vicinity of

Lanzhou. The fact that they early adopted the lifestyle of sedentary agriculturalists is

likely to have been instrumental in their ethnic, linguistic, and ideological separation

from the traditional nomadic society of the Mongols.

The dominant religion of the Mongghul is Tibetan Buddhism, with which the ances-

tors of the Mongghul seem to have been in contact since Yuan times. The Mongghul

spiritual centre is the dGon.lung (Ergulong) monastery, founded in Huzhu in 1604 and

representing the dGe.lugs.pa (‘Yellow Hat’) School. Despite their relatively small

number, the Mongghul have at times played important roles in the Buddhist clergy of the

region, as well as of China at large. At least two incarnations of the lCang.skya

Khutukhtu lineage were probably of Mongghul origin.

DATA AND SOURCES

Mongghul is the most extensively studied Mongolic language of the Gansu-Qinghai

region. Its speakers are first mentioned by nineteenth-century travellers, such as Évariste-

Régis Huc (1850) and N. M. Przheval’skii (1875). The first collection of linguistic data

(word-lists and a short sample of phrases) of any kind of ‘Monguor’ is found in G. N. Potanin

(1893), though his materials, deriving from the so-called Sanchuan region (more or less

identical with the modern administrative entity of Minhe), apparently represent an early

variant of Mangghuer, rather than Mongghul.

In the twentieth century, the Belgian missionary-linguists Antoine Mostaert and

Albrecht de Smedt, of the C.I.C.M. (Scheut Society for Foreign Missions), laid the foun-

dation of ‘Monguor’ linguistics by publishing a detailed account of phonetics (1929–31),

a grammar (1945), and a large Monguor-French dictionary with etymological remarks

(1933). All of these works are based on the Naringhol dialect of Mongghul, which thus

for several decades became by far the best-known ‘Monguor’ dialect. More specifically,

the data were mainly collected in the village of Alima Hangshar, southeast of the

county centre of Huzhu. Mostaert (1931) also published a more general account of the

Mongolic languages of the Gansu-Qinghai region. No texts were published, but a com-

prehensive historical and ethnographic study of the ‘Monguor’ was prepared by another

Catholic missionary, Louis M. J. Schram, C. I. C. M. (1954–61).

Another perspective into Mongghul was opened by Dominik Schröder, SVD, also a

missionary-linguist, who published two short collections of texts, this time from the

Halchighol dialect (1959–70), a grammatical sketch (1964), as well as a detailed descrip-

tion of Mongghul religious life (1952–3). The largest extant body of Mongghul texts

published so far, a fragment of the Geser Epos running over more than 12,000 lines, was

also collected by Schröder in 1948, though it was published in facsimile only much later

by Walther Heissig (1980). Only a small fraction of this text was translated by Schröder

himself. The linguistic material of the text has been studied in detail by Masayoshi

Kakudo (1988, 1996), who has also worked on other questions of Mongghul dialecto-

logy and synchronic grammar (Kakudo 1987, 1989, 1997).

The Sino-Soviet joint linguistic expedition of the 1950s resulted in the ‘Monguor’

grammar (with texts) of B. X. Todaeva (1973), mainly based on the Halchighol dialect,

though containing comparative data from other dialects, including Mangghuer. A brief

synopsis of the same material is given in Todaeva (1997). Also based on the Halchighol

dialect are the short grammar by Junast (1981), the materials of Chuluu (1994), and the

three volumes of data published in Inner Mongolia, containing a collection of sentences

and texts by Chingeltei et al. (1986), a vocabulary by Hasbaatar (1985), and a compara-

tive grammar by Chingeltei and Li Keyu (1988). Individual issues of Mongghul gram-

mar have been dealt with in specialized papers by Chingeltei (1989) and others.

The Mongghul language, like the other Mongolic languages of the Gansu-Qinghai

complex, remains still largely unexplored in the diachronic framework. Apart from the

comparative grammar of Chingeltei and Li Keyu, the most important diachronic contri-

bution is the monograph by András Róna-Tas (1966) on the Tibetan loanwords in

‘Monguor’, a work that was preceded by two phonological papers by the same author

(Róna-Tas 1960, 1962). More recently, the Turkic loanwords of ‘Monguor’ have been

examined by Hans Nugteren (1998).

In the 1980s, a practical orthography was created for Mongghul on the basis of the

Pinyin Romanization of Mandarin Chinese. The orthography has been used in over

twenty publications, including school textbooks, folklore materials, and various

pamphlets, as listed in Limusishiden and Kevin Stuart (1999). The single most important

publication is the practical Mongghul–Chinese dictionary of Li Keyu (1988). The

orthography has required the creation of an increasingly unified normative literary

language, which is based on the Halchighol dialect, but with the incorporation of some

typically Naringhol features. It is true, in spite of the tendency of normalization, there

are still many inconsistencies in the actual application of the orthographical principles,

as discussed by Kakudo (1990).

The following treatment of Mongghul uses, as far as possible, the notational conven-

tions of the standard language for all data, though the imperfection of the current ortho-

graphical practice makes it impossible to follow any systematic norm. Unless otherwise

specified, the data reflect the Halchighol dialect. Data from other dialects, including the

Naringhol dialect, are also presented in the standard orthography, which should not

obscure the fact that they may in other respects be incongruent with the principles of the

current literary language.

SEGMENTAL PHONEMES

Mongghul has five distinctive vowel qualities, which are orthographically rendered as

a e i o u (Table 14.1). All the five qualities can also occur as long syllabic nuclei (double

288 THE MONGOLIC LANGUAGES

vowels), written as sequences of two identical vowel letters, e.g. amu ‘life’ vs. aamu

‘millet’, bosi- ‘to rise’ vs. boosi ‘flea’, niki- ‘to weave’ vs. nikii ‘fur’.

The low vowel a (a) is mostly realized as [a], but it has a fronted allophone [æ] after

the palatal consonants q j x, as in qabsar [tæbsar] ‘gap’. The unrounded mid vowel e

(e) surfaces (in all syllables) as a diphthongoid [ie] after the labial and dental consonants

b m d t n l, and as a schwa-like centralized vowel [] after velars and r, cf. e.g. beri

[pieri] ‘wife’ (also beeri), mengu [mieu] ‘silver’, dere [tier] ‘pillow’ (also dire),

te [tie] ‘that’, ne [nie] ‘this’, gule- [kulie] ‘to speak’, ken [kn] ‘who’. The high

unrounded vowel i (i), too, surfaces mostly as a centralized [], but the realizations of e

and i remain phonetically distinguishable. The genuine palatal quality [i] occurs only

word-initially and after the palatal consonants q j x y, e.g. qiree [tire] ‘face’, jidaa

[dida] ‘lance’ (also jiidaa), xira [ira] ‘yellow’, ayil [ajil] ‘village’.

The rounded vowels o u (o u) are mostly stable, but u is fronted to [y] after palatals,

as in xuroo- [yro] ‘to wish’ (also xiroo-). After the postvelar consonant gh the opposi-

tion between short o and u is neutralized in favour of a surface vowel [], intermediate

in height between the qualities [o] and [u], but orthographically rendered as u. An

additional marginal phoneme is the retroflex vowel [], which occurs in Chinese

loanwords, e.g. (Chinese spelling:) erliuzi [liudz] ‘lazybone’.

As is also the case in the other Mongolic languages of the Gansu-Qinghai complex,

the Proto-Mongolic background of the Mongghul vowels is not always easy to deter-

mine. The most stable vowels are *a *e, which are mainly preserved as such, e.g.

*ala- > ala- ‘to kill’, *alda > alda ‘fathom’, *bari- > bari- ‘to take’; *ger > ger ‘house’,

*bergen > bergen ‘sister-in-law’. Labialization of both *a and *e into u (u) is, however,

often observed after a labial consonant, e.g. *baraxa- > buraa- ‘to finish’; *mede- >

mude- ‘to know’, *mergen > murgen ‘clever’.

The rounded vowels *o *ö *u *ü are all represented as o u with no clear contextual

preference, e.g. *boro > boro ~ buro ‘grey’, *mori/n >

mori ‘horse’, *ol- > uli- ‘to find’,

*kota/n > kudu ‘house’; *öndür > undur ‘high’, *bös > bos ‘cotton’; *uran > uran

‘dexterity’, *udaxan > udaan ‘slow’; *kücü/n > kuji ‘power’, *ükü- > fugu- ‘to die’,

*küli- > koli- ‘to tie’. In general, it seems that the reflexes of the original high vowels *u

*ü are more often than not high, while the development of the mid-high vowels *o *ö is

considerably more variegated. Irregular developments are present in *bol- > boli- ~ bali-

‘to ripen’, *tobci > tebji ‘button’, *jula > jila ‘lamp’. The distinction between *ö *ü vs.

*o *u is occasionally revealed by the different behaviour of adjacent velar consonants,

cf. e.g. *nökör > nukor ‘friend’, *mukur > moghur ‘blunt’. An exceptional velarization

has taken place in *ög- > ughu- ~ ghu- ‘to give’.

The high unrounded vowel *i is basically represented as i, e.g. *ciki/n > qigi ‘ear’,

*imaxa/n > imaa

‘goat’, *jida > jidaa ‘lance’ (also jiidaa), *sira- > xiraa- ‘to roast’.

There is no evidence of actual breaking in Mongghul, but prebreaking (or later regres-

sive vowel assimilation with a similar effect) is attested in several items, e.g. *jiru- >

juuri- ‘to write’, *(x)ildü > uldi ‘sword’, *mika/n > maha ‘meat’.

MONGGHUL 289

TABLE 14.1 MONGGHUL VOWELS